Absolutely, definitely not interfering with play (although that's apparently what the officials thought).
LotG Law 11 tells us that, "interfering with play [means] playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate."
He definitely did not touch the ball - although as I alluded to above, the commentators on the channel I was watching said they'd "heard from the touch line" that the officials thought Yoshida had touched the ball on the way through.
No. That's like asking, "Is there an argument for saying that any player in an offside position is in fact interfering with play?" Unless the player touches the ball, he isn't interfering with play. Unless he is "clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision" he isn't interfering with an opponent.
Again, no. As the law is currently written, and as the IFAB have been at pains to make clear, influencing what an opponent might think is not enough for it to be an offside offence. It has to have an impact on the opponent's actual ability to play the ball.
Doesnt happen very often. But I am going to disagree on this occasion.
The wording "clearly attempts to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an
opponent"
I am going to add the or bit as it shows there is clearly a distinction between impacting and opponent, and impacting their ability to play the ball
"or
makes an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to
play the ball"
Was introduced, I believe 15/16.
A further clarification was issued by ifab to say that. This can be found on their website.
‘impact’ applies to an opponent’s ability (or potential) to play the ball and will
include situations where an opponent’s movement to play the ball is delayed,
hindered or prevented by the offside player.
A player in an offside position attempting to play the ball that is close to him, but does not, but doing so delays the keepers movement commits an offside offence.
I dont believe this part of law 11 has changed since its introduction.
I am not saying the officials were correct I was just offering a potential reasoning as to how they arrived at the decision.